Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron E1200
Athlon 64 4000+
Celeron E1200
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 4000+ is positioned at rank 1112 and the Celeron E1200 is on rank 952, so the Celeron E1200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 4000+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E1200
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron E1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($30) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($98) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron E1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+232%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($30) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($98) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 4000+ and Celeron E1200
Athlon 64 4000+
The Athlon 64 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.
Celeron E1200
The Celeron E1200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $40.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron E1200 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron E1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron E1200 — a 47.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron E1200 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Celeron E1200's 665 — a 1.5% lead for the Athlon 64 4000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron E1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+63% | 1.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K | 512 kB (total) |
| Process | 130 nm | 65 nm-50% |
| Architecture | San Diego (2001−2005) | Allendale (2006−2009) |
| PassMark | 675+2% | 665 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 210 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 380 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron E1200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Athlon 64 4000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1200).
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron E1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 4000+) / No (Celeron E1200). Primary use case: Celeron E1200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1200 rivals Pentium E2140.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron E1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 4000+ launched at $482 MSRP, while the Celeron E1200 debuted at $53. At current prices ($30 vs $98), the Athlon 64 4000+ is $68 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 4000+ delivers 22.5 pts/$ vs 6.8 pts/$ for the Celeron E1200 — making the Athlon 64 4000+ the 107.3% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron E1200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $482 | $53-89% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-69% | $98 |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.5+231% | 6.8 |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2008 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 4000+ and Celeron E1200
